RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT CLYDE.

Dunstan Times, Issue 783, 20 April 1877, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT CLYDE.

Match 19th, 1877. (Before Nugent Wood, Esq., R.M.) Duffy v. Holt.—Claim LIOO for illegal detention of some cattle, and damages. Ll3. Mr P. J. Wilson appeared for the plaintiff ; the defendant conducted his, own case. Evidence only of defendant was taken for transmission to Dunedin. The evidence of witnesses who were witnesses to the sale of the cattle by plaintiff to the defendant, was refused by the Bench, on the ground that the application to hear evidence in Clyde was worded only for the taking of evidence of the defendant.

James Holt, being sworn, said In February, 1872, I purchased twelve head of cattle from plaintiff’s wife, for the sum of L2O, but took possession only of ten. At he time Mrs D uffy told mo that she had a protection order from her husband, and that Mr Pyke, who was then a Resident Magistrate at Clyde, had told her she could do what she liked with them Mr Naylor was present at the time of the-sale, and witnessed the document of the sale (document produced). . 1 took possession of the cattle at the time of sale. The plaintiff was away from Clyde at the time. Some time after, he returned and I saw him mustering the cattle. On asking him what he was doing -he said he purposed branding them. 1 told him they belonged to me, and 1 would shew him the receipt. Ho said he could not read and wanted to know nothing about it. Time went on till October of the same year, when plaintiff came to me and threatened to sue mo for illegal detention of the cattle. 'We went together to Mr Naylor’s. Plaintiff then said I had not paid the value of the cattle, and if I gave him Ll7 8s 6d he would'give me a sale note of them, not wishir gtogo to law. I agreed to this. Mr Naylor and Mr Jeffery were present, and Mr Jeffery witnessed the sale note (document produced). Plaintiff was in my employ during 1873, and when he left he was indebted to me in the sum of L 34s sd, for monies overpaid to him. In October, 1874, I sold a mob of cattle at L2 7s 6d per head, and in March, 1870, [ purchased 41 head of cattle, and a horse for LIOO. Cross examined by Mr P. J. Wilson—l paid Mr Naylor Lll on plaintiff’s account, which was part of the Ll7 8s 6d. The reason I paid plaintiff the further sum] for the cattle was I did not wish toj'get into trouble. PlaintiffJJthreatenedl to Isue me •saying his wife had U£no'; right to sell them. Ijtook possession of i the cattle from plaintiff after the second arrangement •of sale and brandedj them. 1 never had more than 10 head. One died,"and Mrs Duffy took one and sold it. Both documents of sale were read to. [the parties making the bargain. 1 remember plaintiff being committed for trial for arson, 'and jjl believe 1 advanced him L 8 10s for his defence. This L 8 lOs and the Lll 8s 1 paid to Mr Naylor I believe was the manner 1 paid plaintiff the Ll7 18s 6d. It was not agreed that plaintiff should work out the Ll7 8s 6d. Neither of the documents were given as securities. lam not aware of receiving a letter from Mrs Duffy’reapecting the cattle. I received one from Mr Stout, solicitor, Dunedin. I received one from plaintiff asking how we stood regarding wages, which f believe I replied to about two years ago. I told Mrs Duify she could buy the cattle back for the same amount of money they had cost me. Plaintiff was paid in full all monies on account of wages. This closed the evidence. Several small debt cases were entered up as settled out of Court. In the Warden’s Court an application by Messrs M'Nally and party was granted.